Unsettled Christianity

Click to Order

This is an ongoing review, taking it chapter by chapter, or so. This post covers chapters 6-10. While I generally try to be apolitical until the political sphere and the religious sphere clash, when Energion asked me to consider reviewing this book, I took the chance to do so to engage in a discussion which does far too often come in close contact with the Church. Each of these posts will discuss just various points within the chapter.

In chapter 6, entitled, The Breakdown of Voting, Hushbeck presents an overall portrait of the American voter which is rather, well, correct. Most Americans are uninformed of the political process, what the issues really are, and do little to participate. Further, most believe that their votes do not count. Again, while I agree with his overarching theme, I find a few problems, with one being the overarching problem that I would have with his conclusions for the next several chapters.

First, he attempts to correct the notion that we do not have a democracy but a Republic by stating that a ‘republic is a form of democracy.’ (p149). The issue here is that anyone can have a Republic without it being anything close to resembling a Democracy. I note the ‘People’s Republics’ of both China and the Soviet Socialist Republics, neither of which can be said to have (or have had) anything close to resembling a democracy. Instead, we have a democratic Republic in which the citizens (as opposed to the people) elect government leaders which act in the best interest of the people. If we forget this one important fact, then the rest of political science is thrown off kilter. We do not have a direct democracy which the Founders abhorred, but then again, our original democractic Republic was limited to only land owning white males, which is hardly the idea for a democracy. While he handles the idea of voting, gerrymandering, and other issues, he makes such grandstanding statements which discredit his unbiased attempts, especially when he writes, ‘Sadly, an increasing number of elections in the United States are little better than those held in the old Soviet Union, or more recently in Iraq.’ (p158) I would say, that if you would interview those who voted in those types of elections, in which more often than not, the military made sure you voted a certain way, they would laugh at this statement.

In discussing incumbency, he notes that the Founders envisioned that the House would change hands frequently while the Senate – which was elected by State legislatures and meant to represent a share in the executive powers of the Presidency by the Several States – has changed hands more frequently. He does all of this without noting the change brought about in the 17th amendment, which allowed for a direct voting for Senators.

Over all, he is correct that voting and our system of voting, is spoiled, where fraud is rampant, rules meant to allow more people to participate in turn only serve to have the opposite effect and that our current system is often radically different than what the Founders envisioned. The overarching problem that I have with Hushbeck here is his conclusion. He offers no substantial changes. Several times throughout the chapter, I thought I knew where he was going, but he never completed the stop. To preserve a democratic Republic, we must reexamine the 14th and the 17 amendments to the Constitution, as well as return what the Founder’s envisioned in regards to political parties. One of the biggest obstacles to fighting incumbency and political excess is the legal preservation of the two-party system. Later, in other chapters, he attempts to criticize both parties, but he misses the boat in that one of the largest problems in the United States is the two party system. Break that, and you will go a long way to solving several problem mentioned later in the book.

In a chapter devoted to the Distortion of Language, our author greatly distorts Hitler’s Party which was socialist in name only. Currently, the trend is to connect Fascism with Communism and thus the Left. Political Scientists have stated for a very long time, with ample evidence^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]}, that Fascism is very much a part of the Right spectrum. Further, he makes these assertions without documented evidence. Overall, he is correct that Language, especially political speech, has become distorted in our modern age, wherein we are more sufficiently satisfied with a 15 second soundbite than by listening to the politician take hours to dictate his views and try to support them. I return to my overarching disagreement with his conclusions. This is a cultural problem and related very much to the very large political parties. Politicians rarely need to give anything but soundbites (Reagan was the best at this). It has become a one party vs the other party thing anyway.

This overarching disagreement with his conclusions carries over into chapters 8 and 9, An Informed Electorate and The Loss of American Values. While his charge that more Americans should have known that the Democrats were ‘in charge’ for the last two years of the Republican President George Bush’s (because that’s all we have now, is Democrat Americans and Republican Americans) term, he fails to make himself informed of inherent biases and anything outside of his own viewpoint. Further, his stating that FoxNews is actually fair and balanced only serves to prove that Hushbeck is doing little more than touting the party line, and leaves me answering why he didn’t attack the two party system. His redeeming chapter, and it is short lived, is his ninth chapter, in which he rightly notes in great simplicity, that Americans have replaced Liberty with Equality. In this chapter, he very well upbraids me and sets me a little straighter on a few issues. His final chapter, however, leaves a lot to be hoped for, especially in the area of being unbiased.

The final chapter, entitled The Never Ending Struggle, is Hushbeck’s send off. It goes to the core of Hushbeck’s personal feelings, in that he reveals himself as a conservative who sees nothing good in government, blaming them for the problems which the country is facing. In answering his question, how did we get here, (p245) he writes,

If you have read this far, it should not be too surprising that the roots of the current problems can be traced directly back to the government…’

The issue here is that like most conservatives, Hushbeck sees the government as something apart from the people. We the people of these united States, in our smallest incorporated communities to the presidency, elect our government and in many ways, receive the government which we deserve. No, it is not the Government’s fault that voting is breaking down, that the voter is uninformed, or that the Court system is off kilter in regards to the Rule of Law. No, it is not the Government’s fault, but the people’s fault. In a democratic Republic, it is we the people, the citizens, who return without demand of change, the same people, and the children of the same people, who have so corrupted our political process.

Before he moves on, he gives up any pretense that he will remain unbiased, blaming the Democrats for all the ills. He never states anything about the voter’s mandates to the current President nor the fact that the Democrats ran on certain platforms. Instead, he readily blames them for doing exactly what they told the voters that they would do if elected. He fails to mention the Senate Filibuster rule which excludes majority rules or that there was actually a GOP congressman who voted for the healthcare bill. He easily repeats the Republican talking points against the President by accusing him of bringing ‘Chicago style politics’ to Washington without really ever defining what he means. He accuses the President of using such tactics (never examining the tactics which Bush used) during the health care reform debate. Hushbeck actually believes that the election of Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat was the ‘will of the people’ although this was one state, one Senator of that state, and in a election marred by the usual politics. He accuses the Democrats of having other areas of concerns, quoting such ‘unbiased’ sources as Glenn Beck and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, such as Card Check, the Fairness Doctrine and czars. The resounding issue here is that the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t portray Card Check with any sense of truth. The Democrats, including the President, have come out against the Fairness Doctrine, which has been implemented before. And, while he notes that other Presidents have appointed czars, he still lists it as mark against the President. Further, he comments against ‘Obama’s politicization of the Census’. I note that this book was written before the Census completed and before redistricting has started, so he based his view on nothing but fear of what he thinks could happen. He does the same thing with the Value Added Tax, in which the President and other Democrats have stated their opposition against. Further, He bases his viewpoint on the President on things that have never and will never happen.

He ends the chapter, and the book, with a subsection entitled, The Second American Revolution. Considering that the first one was about the overthrow of government by force, I wonder why this title was chosen. He gets his facts wrong on the beginning of the Tea Party, which he pins to Rick Santelli of CNBC on February 19th, 2009, less than a month after the President was sworn in. It actually started the day before the President was sworn in and was a concerted effort to thwart the incoming President. He also fails to mention the many corporate sponsors that the Tea Party (in reality, there is no real monolithic structure name The Tea Party) has had via such groups as Freedom Works.

I believe that had Hushbeck spent more time looking for solutions rather than blaming the Democrats, he might have seen the real issues.

Click to Order

This is an ongoing review, taking it chapter by chapter, or so. This post covers chapter 5, Law and Justice. While I generally try to be apolitical until the political sphere and the religious sphere clash, when Energion asked me to consider reviewing this book, I took the chance to do so to engage in a discussion which does far too often come in close contact with the Church. Each of these posts will discuss just various points within the chapter.

In this chapter, Hushbeck takes on the modern creation of American society into one that uses the legal system as a means to make money. Frankly, there isn’t much in this chapter which I could disagree with, not his thesis here, nor his examples, nor even his outcome. My concern, only, is that Hushbeck seems to be against the Tort system completely. He focuses heavily on the asbestos lawsuits, which I have first hand knowledge of. My paternal grandfather worked in the pipe fitter trades in Baton Rouge since the 1960′s. It was during this time that Corporations slowly became ‘citizens’, and while one side of that coin is the protections and freedoms afforded individual citizens, the other side is that they also answer to the same punishments. By that, I mean that many of these companies which used asbestos have been shown to have known about the dangers of asbestos and refused to do anything to protect their workers. The author is correct that many workers who show no lasting effects of asbestos have sued the companies leaving little recourse for those whose life will be or have been cut short due to purposed corporate malfeasance. My grandfather was among the first to sue and win due to the cancer which is caused by asbestos. His life was cut short just a few months later.

He highlights that the focus of the civil justice system is no longer really about justice, at least the justice as understood by the Founders. Lasting Justice is not about collecting monetary value for the damage done, although this is a part of if at times, but about correcting the issue which has led to injustice. There are plenty of lawsuits which can be shown to bring about real justice (in the civil courts), and often times see the wronged rewarded. But that must not be the goal of the civil courts. Monetary awards only allow the justice to be sold, not corrected. This cannot be done through laws, but must come through a change in culture, where the first thought when a wrong has been committed is not about the checks to be received, but the checks to be employed so as to see that the issue doesn’t arise again.

While, again, I would suggest that a more substantial amount of evidence be presented, Hushbeck is correct, and like the previous chapter, has presented his argument and conclusion which is dead on.

Click to Order

This is an ongoing review, taking it chapter by chapter, or so. This post covers chapter 4, The Rule of Law. While I generally try to be apolitical until the political sphere and the religious sphere clash, when Energion asked me to consider reviewing this book, I took the chance to do so to engage in a discussion which does far too often come in close contact with the Church. Each of these posts will discuss just various points within the chapter.

I was a bit apprehensive about reading this chapter, the more so since reading the previous chapters. I thought that it would be a rant about ‘liberal activist’ judges, and fully expected to end the chapter with a book burning. I didn’t and found myself in general agreement with Hushbeck on his overarching thought and thesis in this chapter, in that the Court system has moved away from the Rule of Law which provided against the judicial rule making we find so prevalent today. There are, however, problems.

First, I think it only shows intellectual dishonesty to say that religion did not play a large part in the mindset of the Founders and their generation. Whether this was the Christian religion that we know today or some philosophical hybrid which was birthed during the Enlightenment, we can reserve that quibble to some other time. Hushbeck, however, doesn’t delve into that for whatever reason, and I for one find it refreshing that he doesn’t. Instead, he allows that religion did play a large part in the Founders’ era and that, contrary to extreme elements in politicized history, the Founders were not contrary to religion. He quotes from Professor Huntington, however, who lists the statements from politicians, post 1811, that America is a ‘Christian’ nation, without listing the other side, including Supreme Court decisions and statements made in concession to Islamic pirates that indeed, the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.

He is right that by and large, the Country through the Court systems, have moved away from the Rule of Law, that Law being written documents, often times finding decisions based on non-law, or even non-U.S. law, statements, such as Jefferson’s statement on the separation of Church and State. Further, he is correct that in the United States, as in the West I would remind him, much of secular law is derived from the long-standing legal tradition found in the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. Even the prompting statements against royal rule is found therein and the reason for revolt, especially after a reinterpretation of Romans 13. While modern society by and large doesn’t like the idea that our legal foundation is derived in some way from the biblical texts (even politically, we can see purposed framing of our three branches from experiences found in the Torah), they are. Hushbeck, I hope in a future volume dedicated to this chapter completely, would do well to show those examples as well as provide more substantiating an collaborating support for his points. This is, by and large, my single most important quibble with the author.

One thing which bothers me, as Hushbeck goes on to describe what happened to move our Constitution from the vaulted pedestal that it held to the position now where it is used as a backdrop, if needed, in decisions is that he accuses ‘intellectuals’ (p111) in the 1930s of aiding and abetting these actions. First, such a statement could be made to read as something anti-intellectual; I try not to take it as such, especially since the sources he does use are intellectual themselves. What bothers me the most, however, is that the same intellectuals ‘in both the United States and Europe’ who fought for secularization are those same who under gird his economic doctrines. Rand and Hayek, among others, were part of this intellectual elite, which fought to move the West away from the sectarian past but they did it economically. Neither were a friend of religion or the religious underpinnings of society. This is not merely Hushbeck’s problem, but even many today who fight to keep the ‘intellectuals’ from removing religion from the public square but enlist in the fight to remove religion from the economic arena as led by ‘intellectuals’.

Another issue that I have is that this country is simply not a Democracy, and yet, Hushbeck seems to describe it as so, in which the majority can overrule the Rule of Law. I admit, this paradoxical reading may be subjective, but on page 115, he takes to task the Courts and their ability to rule laws, even those passed by a majority of the people, unconstitutional. He writes that such actions by the Courts, is removing from the people the right to democratically pass such laws. Yet, throughout the chapter, Hushbeck, rightly, states that the Courts only ability is to rule if the law is constitutionally acceptable. This issue comes, I believe, from the removal of Federalism, a removal granted by the 14th amendment, in which it recreated a United States Government from the government of the united States. Now, all laws, even municipal codes, are subject to the same prohibitions against Congress when the Constitution says, ‘Congress shall make no law…’. The issue here is that this country has become, contrary to the Founder’s and much of the Constitution, a democracy and not a Federal Republic. As a final statement, the reason the House was elected by the People of the several States is to give the People a voice in the Federal Government to counter the States’ voice through the Senate.

His take on Roe V. Wade as a constitutional decision is balanced and dead on. He notes that unless the judges are equally (p122) activist in their overturning, this law is likely to stay. He is right, that this decision by the Supreme Court goes beyond the pale in corrupting and expanding the power of the Courts to exercise legislative ability in creating or ordering the creation of laws which support their decision. He clearly knows his facts and history here (although, again, more support should be applied and he could find much support against the decision, even from liberal jurists).

In his ‘What can be done’ section at the end of the chapter, he notes that the only thing which can be done is to insist that Judges rule according to the original mandate. He previously noted that Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Court, which was only given the power to rule as an up and down on the law, was the weakest of the branches. There is a reason for this. In Section 2, Article 3 of the United States Constitution, the power of the court is severally limited. (I note that in Section 1 of the same Article, Congress has the power to establish lower Courts, with only the Supreme Court being mandated, and with the power to establish comes the power to unestablish.) The section reads,

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It is not merely the power to threaten impeachment or to insist through political pressure that a judge rules according to the Law (as this is often decided by which way the decision goes as to who believes the judge is an activist), but Congress has first the power to force the Supreme Court to hear only those cases which it deems within the jurisdiction of the Court. Secondly, the Congress has the power to remove jurisdiction from lower courts or, if necessary, to completely remove all federal courts except that of the Supreme Court.

Overall, Hushbeck is right and is concern is one which all Americans, regardless of political leanings should pay special attention to. Courts which base their decisions on contemporary trends or anything not found in the written law is a dangerous thing to the Republic. One of the problems facing this Republic of ours is the lack of real jurisprudence and a turning away from the Constitution to look for a foundation which is not written in stone, so to speak, but those written on scratch pads. I hope that if a future volume is forthcoming from Mr. Hushbeck, that he takes it all and devotes it to righting the place where the Court System as left us.

There is also something to be said that instead of one Legislative body, we have three – the President through the Executive Orders and the Courts through their ability to force legislation.

I am shutting down my ‘trophy’ blog shortly, so I am moving posts to here. Sorry about that… Before you comment, however, let me encourage you to read the review series, buy the book, and argue with it. Part of the conversation – any conversation as important as the future of this country – is to hear the multi-sides. Hushbeck has an opinion, and while I don’t always agree with, or his facts, his voice is an important one. Frankly, anyone who pens a document instead of shouting and takes the position of a fear-monger deserves high praise. Hushbeck is no Glenn Beck and for that, whether we disagree or not, he is commendable.

Click to Order

This is an ongoing review, taking it chapter by chapter, or so. This post covers Chapters 1 – 3. While I generally try to be apolitical until the political sphere and the religious sphere clash, when Energion asked me to consider reviewing this book, I took the chance to do so to engage in a discussion which does far too often come in close contact with the Church. Each of these posts will discuss just various points within the chapter.

Beginning in the introduction, Hushbeck promises an attempt to ‘remain balanced’ in his presentation, however, into the second chapter, I find the usual conservative talking points against unions, in which they are accused of ‘actively seek(ing) to limit competition and thus drive up wages’ while praising the upswing in ‘contract work.’ (p35) While a review should not consist of all the counterpoints that the reviewer could raise to such a remark, it is safe to say that such a bitterly partisan jab at unions so early in the book only made me read the rest with apprehension. Further, on the very next page, the description of government workers is such a stereotype that it is off-putting. What he doesn’t consider is that his experiences with government workers (said I, a government worker) may not be typical across the entire spectrum of government positions of governments, and yet, he freely uses the analogy, as he does with one later, to prove his point, unsubstantiated.

In explaining tax theory, he focuses in on the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ and heralds them as a proper and expedient thing which brought in more money than expected, all the while ignoring the current situation in which we find that during the Bush-era, there was zero job growth, the deficit skyrocketed and even now, the CBO is suggesting that the tax cuts be allowed to expire. Further, he ignores the fact that President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, and through sufficient Government Regulation, the economy soared, the budget was balanced, and jobs were added to the economy.

Hushbeck rarely uses two sides of the information, often relying upon the same source for his information. His simple explanation is contrary to many economists, which he never thinks to consider; however, he is correct that taxes are becoming a problem in this country. One chart tells the story beyond all words and resources, in that at the turn of the 20th century, the tax rate was well below 10%, but now? Hovering at 33% or so. Hushbeck is correct that taxes plays a large part in the current American political system, in which taxes are used as bait for votes. Further, he is correct in his analogies and use of history of political rulers opening the treasury, generally filled the most by the wealthiest, to the poorest amongst us without any plan to raise their plight. I don’t much care for some of his tactics, but Hushbeck at the very least, unlike so many today, has plans to offer.

His plans, contrary to his ideas expressed in the next chapter, include a national tax. While he criticizes the 16th amendment for its nearly uncontrolled ability for Congress to lay taxes on income, he sees no real problem with a national tax, either Flat or Fair, in which Congress can readily tax, according to income, the citizens of the United States. I, for one, like the Flat Tax, finding the Fair Tax, as he describes it, nothing more than creating a real, honest to goodness, welfare state.

Opening the next chapter, which is entitled Planning vs. Competition, he compares the earthquake which occurred in 1906 in San Fransisco and post-World War 2 Sweden and seemingly believes that they are fully comparable. He ignores the several important factors in comparing the two, such as the conflicts in Sweden before hand and the large governmental role in the aftermath of the 1906 earthquake. For Hushbeck, the comparison is adequate based on housing and real estate (which is ironic, because the 1906 death toll was originally scaled way down by the Government to increase real estate prices in the Bay area), and perhaps it is on the surface, but any small amount of historical research shows that the two are vastly different.

Further, his take on the 55 speed limit laws, again, leaves the facts a bit distorted. While he corrects that this law, a farce, was put into place as an energy-saving measure by (Republican) President Nixon, he was left in place until 1995, when, as he notes, once the Congress ‘changed hands’ (p69), it was repealed. He also notes that the accident rates didn’t see the jump which many expected. He leaves out several factors here. First, while the national law was 55, there were various roads where the law was not applied. Further, States challenged this law. Second, while after the law, the accident rates didn’t return to pre-1973 status, neither did the actual speed limits.

In the same chapter, Hushbeck makes a comment which grated on my pro-States’ Rights (or, if you prefer, States’ Rats). He writes, ‘From the time of the Constitution until World War I, the federal government maintained a fairly limited role.’ (p69) I believe that Mr. Hushbeck has ignored the period between 1861 and 1877, in which the Federal Government fought a war, won, and then imposed occupation over a large swath of the country. As any Southerner should be able to tell you, the Articles of the Confederation was to be a ‘perpetual union’ while the Constitution never mentions any sort of thing. Before the U.S. Constitution, there was no such thing as a ‘federal government’ as the States, as free and independent geo-political entities, were sovereign. It was only after an increase in attacks on the economic system that without authorization of the Confederation, that men set and drafted the Constitution, with the notes of the meeting not being released until long years afterward. By the time the War Between the States came in 1861, the territorial expansion, railroads and interstate commerce had greatly expanded the ‘limited’ role of the Federal Government, which was challenged by nullification and secession. The challengers, as we know, lost. From then on, the States become more like provinces. So, no, it wasn’t Wilson the Democrat who expanded Federal power, but by and large, the Republican Lincoln.

Returning later in the third chapter to the analogy which he attempted at the beginning, Hushbeck focuses on Socialism (p77), repeating the often told heresy that fascism and Communism are socialist extensions. He cites, as his proof Hitler’s National Socialist Party, ignoring the fact that Hitler preached against socialism and communism, with a murderous rage. To define socialism, he uses Friedrick Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom, which, along with Ayn Rand‘s books, have become the staple intellectual foundation for conservative thinkers. Using Hayek to define Socialism is like using the Grand Dragon of the KKK to highlight the positive attributes of minorities. Hayek, and Rand, was an avowed agnostic who used evolutionary theory, expanding it into the economic sphere. For Hayek, there was no social justice, perhaps in part, due to the survival of the fittest mentality suggested by Darwinist evolution. Socialism, itself designed in an evolutionary stance in which humanity grows in compassion and humility towards one another (Hushbeck notes that Socialism requires humans to act against their nature, p81, something most moral religions and philosophies do as well), is not about central planning, but were, at one stage of evolutionary economics, about communal ownership of some of the basic means of production. It is an economic theory, not a political system, and consistent with the development of a pure democracy. Capitalism is at its heart an individualist and selfish enterprise which is often times anti-social in nature. With Hushbeck basing his understanding and personal theory only on one side, without considering the source or the foundation for said source, leaves me questioning Hushbeck.

In the same chapter, Hushbeck moves to the Federalism supported by the Founding Fathers, noting that they created a system of government ‘that would keep governmental decisions close to the people’ (p85). Yet, this is entirely historically accurate either. Colonies were formed a township or so at a time on land granted by the King. Each land grant became the colony (hence Georgia, etc…). When independence came, each Colony assumed sovereign statehood and joined in confederation with the other states. Only when economic security of the wealthy and the peace of the 13 states were threatened, did the need for a stronger, ‘more perfect Union’ come to be. The Founders didn’t create local government, but simply allowed it to the extent where one local government couldn’t invalidate another. The Constitution was meant to guard the economic wealth of the individual states, the oligarchy which ruled them, and to prevent the united States of America (the ‘u’ wasn’t capitalized for a long time) from descending into European madness. Understanding the economic and political history of the Constitution is a must when discussing the Republic and any attempt at preserving the system enumerated in the document.

Hushbeck then turns to public education, which I believe all Americans should be concerned with, and rightly notes that with the increased of Federalization and centralization, the nation’s educational scores and key indicators have plummeted. He is completely correct in this part, however, like he has shown other areas of his book, he is wrong on the history. He writes, ‘Against it is important to remember that it was not until 1980 that we even had a Department of Education.’ (p89) In fact, it was in the wake of the War for Southern Independence that the first Department of Education was created in 1867. It was soon demoted out of cabinet status to a minor operating agency. I note, however, that the original role was said by Congressman Donnelly of Minnesota, referring to the southern states and the recent Civil War, to mean,

We have found that the hitherto governing populations of those states could not be trusted to uphold the national Government, . . the responsibility for all this has been properly charged to slavery. Slavery has been swept away, but the ignorance, the degradation, which were its consequences remain. . . . “

Hushbeck is correct in his argument against the centralized educational system, but does not go far enough nor historical enough, to finish his arguments. It is in the educational system which the several sides most first examine as proof either for or against the centralization or abandonment of federalism. The author loses a great opportunity to drive home his point here.

Further, in this already weak chapter, Hushbeck fails to analyze the start of Government planning in the United States, although he does touch ever so briefly on how the Government began the accreditation process, bringing tighter control over the country’s higher educational institutions. If he writes a follow-up, or a third edition, he should focus on World War 1 as the start of Governmental planning in the United Stated. It was during this time that the Government began to greatly interfere, whether rightly or wrongly, in the lives of its citizens, which because of the Great Depression, World War II then the Korean and the Cold Wars, made those citizens forget pre-centralization days. Nearly three generations have passed since the Great War and the rush to centrally plan and yet, the country still operates in that mode, whether rightly as a response to globalization or wrongly as three generations of Americans now have no clue as to the original idea of Federalism.